TIIE JEWISII QUARTERLY Ri,vww. XCIII. Nos. 3- 4 (January- April, 2003) 4 15 430 THE DEPENDENCE OF RABBJ DAVID KIMHI (RADAK) ON RASH! lN HIS QUOTATION OF MlDRASHIC TRADJTIONS N AOMI G RUNHAUS, Yeshiva University A HSTRACT 71,i, tmicle demnns1ra1es th111 the /3th-ce11 111ry exegrte Ra/J/1i David Kimhi (Ra<lak) relied 011 Raslri a., a wurce.f<Jr midmshir· tmdi/inns. i11 ad­ ditio11 It) /us known use of Ras/Ii as t i resource .(or exeg('(ical illlerpreta- 1in11s. Tlris re/ianc<' shm,·~ tlwr RadaA l'it'wed Raslri 11s c111 c1111/10riwti1•I! source for midrashic ma1erit1/ ,md fom111/atio11s. F11rther111nre. Rad11k '.1· use of Rm hi a:, 11 source re1•e11if Raslli 's i11j111e11ce 011 Ra,lak's thought. It ,·11,~ ­ gests 1ha1 Rad11k learned the exegetical and pedagogical value of the q 110 - 1111io11 of rabbinic mll/erial from Raslri. Rmlak ·, depende11ce 1111 flashi ca11 i11 tum be applied broadly lo suggest that Radak did not che,·k oil original ,\Ources. !JIit rather relied ell rime., 1111 hi.1 mvn memory in <'Of(i1111('li//11 wit/1 Rashi's rerord of certain aggatli<' i111erprerati1111.<. Radak', q11ow1ion ofmidrashic materialfrrm, Ra.\hi demonstrates the ,·..1- t,•11111f1he availability ofRashi'.v co111111en1t1ries 011 rhe Prophet, and 1/agio­ gmphu i11 Radak ·s e111•ilw 1me111. While R,uhi 's c·ommefllar.1• 011 the Per,1r11e11ch 11·as wid1•/_1• known. the co111111n1111ri£,.v 011 other bi/Jlical baoks were less fl"/111/ar. Spel'ijic i11.<11111ces r,f Radak ·.,· use of Ra.1/ii a., a .1·011rce for mid­ rashh· 1mditio11s are im•estigated and offered as evidence r,f heavi,,r use hy Radak of Raslri ·s cm11111e11111ries them ha.,· 11re1•irmsly /1a11 dorn111e11ted. This paper analyzes the dependence of Rabbi D avid Kimhi (Radak). an importan t exegete of early I 3th-century Provence, on Rashi. of I I th-century France, as a source for midrashic interpre­ tations. Earlier scholars have not noted this reliance sufficiently. 1 Radak 's dependence on Rashi in the quotation of midrashic material can be broadly applied to suggest that Radak did not check all the original sources. but rel ied at times on his memory in conjunction 1 H. Cohen, ed.. The C,>m 111e11tory of flab/Ji Vm·itl Kimhi 011 1-fo.,·eo (New York , 1929). p. xxxii notes Radak'~ use of Rashi in passi ng but docs 1101 attc111p1 an analysis or description of 1he da1a. L. Finkels1ein, ed .. The Commentary of Dm•icl Kim/11 011 lsc,i<lh (New York, J()26). p. xxx ii cites 1wo examples from Radak's commcnrnry on h aiah. Finkcls1ein s1a1c, 1hat a speci fic rnidrm,hic w1)rding i:. fo und cxclu, ivcly in lhc corn 111 cn1ari~, of Ra,hi and Rada.~ on ls:1 17: I (2), bu1 1hc same phra,eology is in fac1 round 1wicc in Yalqu\ Shim'oni (1.764 and 2.2 18). 416 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW with Rashi 's record of rabbinic interpretations. Rashi 's role as a repository for midrashic traditions underscores the difficulty of as­ sessing the exact makeup of Radak·s library of rabbiojc texts. Scholars have generally assumed that Radak drew on Rashi" s commentary for bis pesha\ interpretations.2 Radak's use of Rashi as a resource for peshar traditions widens his reliance on Rashi beyond this general dependence. Evidently, Radak viewed Rashi as an au­ thoritative source for midrasbi c material and formulations, in addi­ ti on to his use of Rashi as a basis for comparative exegesis. Perhaps this was the prevalent view of Rashi and his commentary in Radak's milieu. Furthermore, Radak's use of Rashi as a source for midrashic ma­ terial reveals Rashi 's influence on Radak's method. It supports the hypothesis that Radak learned the exegeti cal and pedagogical value of quoting rabbinic material from Rasbi. Rashi quotes fewer rab­ binic traditions in his commentaries on the Prophets than he does in his commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 Perhaps Radak, who wrote mostly on the Prophets. 4 chose to mentjon so many rabbinic tra­ ditions because there was no widely available repository for them in commentary form. Indeed, perhaps the popularity enjoyed by Radak's commentaries was comparable to lhe popularity of Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch5 because of Radak's frequent quota­ ti on of rabbi.nic literature. 1 See below, nn. 33, 36, 39. 3 A. Marx, "The Life and Work of Rashi,"' in Rashi Anniversary Volume. Texts and Studies. vo.l. I {New York, 1941). p. 20. 4 F. Talmage. Dai•id Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries (Cambridge, 1975). p. 58. With the aim of publishing a complete edition of Radak's Torah commentary, M. Kamelhar collected Radak·s comments on the latter four books of the Pentateuch in Radak's other writings and published these with his commentary on Genesis (Jern­ salem, 1975). Radal<"s commentaries on Psalms and Chronicles are also extant. The commentary on Proverbs mistakenly a11Tibu1ed to Radak is discussed below in n. 35. 5 L. Finkelstein, The Com111e111ary of David Kimhi on Isaiah, p. xxi. Both Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch and Radnk's commentaries on the Psalms and Prophets were among the first commentaries 10 be printed at the start of Hebrew prinLing. See H. C. Zafran, "'Bible Editions. Bi ble Study and the Early History of Hebrew Printing," Ererz Israel 16 ( 1982) 247*. Zafran·s table shows that Radak's commentaries on the Prophets were published ( 1485/6) quite some time before Rash i's (in M iqrao'r Gedo/or editions-15 17 and 1525). The laTge number of manuscripts of both exegetes' com- 111en1nries on the Prophets as compared 10 tho~e of other commentators is proof of their Tl-IE DEPENDENCE OF RADA K ON RAS!-11- GRUN HAUS 4 17 Radak's depende nce o n Ra~hi illuminales anothe r important issue. Radak sometimes rccord1, a rabbinic interpretation and then categorizes that interpretation as "remote." His reason for mentio n­ ing the rabbinic interpretations in these cases is unclear. as he con­ sider. them remote. A plausible explanation in al least some of these cases is that Radak was following Rasbi, who had already stated the rabbinjc interpretation of the passage. Since Radak expected that it would be familiar to his audience, he felt compell ed to wrestl e with the particular rabbinic interpretation. 6 ln certain cases, no definite source can be .located in extant rab­ binic literature for quotations of aggadic interpretati ons or certain formulations in Radak'. work, but the same aggadic formulations are found in Ra hi ·s commentaries. For example, Radak paraphrases the midrashic tradition known from GenR 60.3 and other sources that Jephthah and Phinehas were punis hed because they neglected to annul Jephthah's vow. resulting in the death of ms daughter. The midrashic tradition states that Jephthah's limbs fell off one by one as a punishment. which is suggested by the biblical text: " He was bur­ ied in the cities o f Gilead·' (Judg 12:7). As each limb fell off, it was buried, hence the burial in mull iple cities. The specific rormulation that Jephthah was plagued by boil s (pnl!!) is stated by Rashi and repeated by Radak, but is not round in other rabbinic sources. While it is possible that both exegetes based thei r remarks on a rabbinic source that is no lo nger extant, the absence or any record of anoLher source and the distinct similarity between the two formulations leads to the greater likelihood that Radak relied on Rashi in his quotation or this midrashic tradition. 7 popul,iriry. A case in point is the number of manuscripts of both cornmentaric, 10 Ezekiel. J. Penl.ower. "Peru, h Rashi le-Scfcr Ye~czqel'' (in pres,) cs1ahlishcs 1ha1 Lhe number of manuscripts of Ra,.hi's commentary on Ezekiel (59/60) rs roughly double the number of manu~crip1s or Radak·s co111mcr11ary on it (32). By comparison. the number of manuscri pts of the other commenrnries published in the Ha- Kcler edition of the book of Ezekiel (Ramal Gan. 2000) ranges from one or 1wo 10 seven and ten. I thank Professor Penknwer for sharing with me his knowledge and conclusions on this ~object. and for his critique of certain fonnulations in the paper. 6 E.g.• Josh 24:25, s.v. • Jl!I. Jo,h 3: 10. s.v. mm. 7 L. Ginzbcrg. Lege1Uls of rhe Jell'~ (New York. 1961) docs not record any 111c 111 ion of boils, nor is there any mention in the standard commentaries 10 Genesi, Rabbah. 418 T HE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Given Rashi 's dependence on rabbinic literature, 8 it is conceivable that Rashi did not speculate that Jephthah was plagued with boils, but rather that he came across this formulation in his study of agga­ dic literature. Radak in turn did not see those original aggadic tradi­ tions but rather re li ed on Rashi 's commentary as a rabbinic source. Alternatively, Radak may have had access to the same rabbinic text as Rashi with its unique interpretation but which is no longer extant. 9 To support the hypothesis that Rashi and Radak did not invent the noti on that boil s plagued Jephthah and others like it, S. Lieberman's line of reasoning regarding Christian debaters can be employed. Lieberman maintains that it is unlikely that Christians invented rab­ binic statements for use in polemics because a consultation of the original sources would easily disprove them.